Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russet who wrote (12133)	2/19/2003 9:47:13 PM
From: Mark Bartlett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14101

russett, I have a few questions. 1) All medications that are taken for prolonged periods of time have labelling warnings or indicators that suggest when the medication may need to be discontinued. Why would that not suffice with Pennsaid? Surely it can not be that difficult to include some comment for that purpose. It is clear from the trial data that some people had to be removed from using Pennsaid for irritation issues -- not a lot, but some. So it seems apparent to me that these indicators are readily available. If it take 12 weeks or 2 years to develop sensitization, so be it -- if it happens then you stop using it. 2) Is DMX being held to a different standard than other companies to obtain approval? For example, the data for the Cox2s was only for a 12 week period. Apparently that was OK. Even now, when more long-term data is available, they are still touted as superior to the older NSAIDS despite there being numerous types of evidence that suggests they may have other issues. My own brother ended up on the hospital due to Celebrex issues. 3) How does one get any new medication approved for long-term use when trials are not that long? It seems to me that there is no way to really be sure that any med developed for long-term use is safe, until it has been used for whatever period of time you are interested in approving. It seems to be a no-win situation. 4) Use of older NSAIDS has been proven to lead to deaths and hospitalizations of users. Apparently, in the hundreds of people who have used Pennsaid, there have been no such complaints. It seems to me that there are some serious risk -benefit issues here. One being a skin rash/sensitization that resolves after use stops, and potentially dying (where you are stopped for good). 5) I do not have the Pennsaid paper in front of me at the moment, but in terms of how long the potential exists for chemicals to be transported through the skin -- I seem to recall that the pharmakokinetics re "transportation time" is actually only a few minutes. That is not to say that it would not last up to 20 minutes, but rather the majority of anything that is going to be transported will happen quite quickly. Since I do not have the paper readily available, I may be wrong on this point. MB

To: russet who wrote (12133)	2/20/2003 12:32:12 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14101

Monsieur le grand russett - "take a few lines of a past series of posts out of context and spin it to your own evil ends (ggggggggg)" The links were supplied with the quotations. Readers are free to determine the "context" and make their own evaluations of your statements: if they stand up to scrutiny, I'm sure you will find supporters. When you came on this thread with your views, they were greeted and discussed with courtesy. You began a diatribe of highly debatable and questionable views, while slipping into disparaging and insulting remarks about those who questioned your assertions. Your attitude has always been that anybody who does not agree with you is a "cultist" - that doctors and research scientists who disagree with you are "frauds". For many months, reasonable people have conceded that you may have a point - that long-term use of Pennsaid may have to be discontinued. That concession was never enough for you. The path you have taken is unfortunate; the twists you put on your words, and the words of others speak to a highly distorted vision, or a campaign of denigration towards others, and DMX products. Your tactic of answering challenges to your erroneous or questionable statements, by pointing to the stock price is a childish and evasive tactic, designed to hide the fact that you can't justify what you say. The give and take of debate is sometimes heated, but usually honest, on DMX threads. In your case, the honesty is conspicuously absent.

To: russet who wrote (12133)	2/20/2003 2:29:35 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14101

<It is clear that the shareprice does not make sense if Pennsaid was the wonder drug the cult says it is. > Why do you say that. It seems to me that a $200 market cap for a company that at least a few year away of showing some profits based on drugs that have not been accepted yet is not an inexpensive proposition. The stock is where it should be. I would also like to had that long term effects of any drug may be important and unknowns, but the short term pains of some individual will prevail over those risks.